School as child care

[Differentforgirls]

From another thread.

A poster said that state schools are there for helping parents to work. Therefore teachers are childminders. Teachers!

I think schools are there to educate our children and, though the staff go above and beyond these days, that is their primary function.

AIBU?

Many? Most are staffed by nursery nurses.

Hasn't really stopped you opining though has it?

But multiple people are telling you they don’t view school as childcare. They view school as school and pay for additional childcare around school hours.

But apparently that still isn’t okay? Why don’t you just admit this thread is a massive bash against women parents who aren’t fortunate enough to be able to squeeze their work into 9am-3pm Mon-Fri term time only?

Well excuse me if I can't take you seriously then. You are coming across as having a poor attitude towards working parents.

Who also provide education and childcare

I certainly think that schools, as organisations, do and should provide childcare. Education by teachers is one aspect of this.
The idea that schools are purely a seat of learning is outdated and teachers aspiring to a nostalgic Edwardian era are delusional.
Society needs us all to work and we need our children cared for so we can do so, by competent and caring people who understand that it’s part of the deal.

Do you view the baby sitting parts the same as the educating parts?

So you view teachers as baby sitters 👍

And? What’s the issue with this?

You might have missed the part of who started the thread.

@Differentforgirls

I think you need to clarify your question. I’m not sure what it is. What is your argument and what do you posit?

Read the OP.

I've said what my view is. It provides both, and has done since collective education was invented. I don't know why you have such a problem with that. It doesn't mean I don't value teachers - it means I value them all the more. And it doesn't mean I do t think individual teachers have too much on their plates or are underpaid or anything of the sort. It means I think schools serve a dual purpose. And childcare isn't something parents should feel guilty about accessing.

Schools are for education and children being at school enables adults to work. Viewing/describing schools as childcare is a slippery slope and should be avoided. It takes the focus off the needs of children and onto the needs of working parents. School hours and term/holiday length should be based on child development theory and not on the needs of working parents. What people should be focusing on is pushing for better working hours and more flexible working. If both parents could access this, the schools wouldn’t need to fill the gap. The problem isn’t working parents or schools. It’s the lack of flexibility for working parents and the unfair pressure on schools to fix it.

Yes it’s obvious that you and a few others don’t understand my opening post.

You don’t seem to have made a point though. My kids go to school. The teacher teaches them. I go to work while they are there and then they go to afterschool club. The teachers don’t do anything other than teach, which includes teaching them not to swing on chairs and not to kick the person next to them etc etc. What on earth are you on about with ‘childcare’?

You haven't expanded on who cared for your children whilst you worked though. Unless your argument is that is is fine to leave primary school children unsupervised for 6 hours a day it seems flawed.

Multiple people seem to view education as child care.

What people should be focusing on is pushing for better working hours and more flexible working.

It is just not possible for vast swathes of people to do the kind of important jobs that keep society functioning, only during hours that suit the OP's ego.

Mamy schools have great after school provision. What is the issue with that?

Well of course they do. Who else has care of the child during school hours?

Agree!

This is actually the most factual thing you have said. I have no clue what point you are trying to make.

Let me help you explain your point (if you have one!) because you seem weirdly het up about something.

What do you think teachers are doing that they shouldn’t be? What do you think parents are doing that they shouldn’t be?

I think OP that you have an unrealistic view of the pressures on families nowadays. If you are retired, perhaps you are comfortable financially? Maybe you were able to work part time during your child-rearing years? Most families now need two full time working parents to keep up with the current cost of living.

I am a teacher and I fully agree that a school’s primary purpose is to educate children. I do think teachers are professionals and they should be recognised and paid as such. Imparting knowledge is only the tip of the iceberg and much more difficult than may parents realise. However - I don’t see education as solely teaching reading, writing and maths. A broad and balanced curriculum of academic subjects embedded within a wider provision of social, emotional and health education is surely what children need to grow up useful, healthy and happy in today’s world.

I wholeheartedly agree with posters saying that SOME parents don’t do enough to build these skills in their children but as with all universal provision - the state picks up the slack.

Core hours of schooling provided by teachers set within longer hours facilitated by sports coaches, play leaders and other childcare providers would allow parents to work and children to develop a wide range of skills. Down time, sports, cooking, forest school and outdoor play could all be included for a small charge to parents. School facilities would be used for longer, teachers would be freed up from much of the additional admin and pastoral care they do now.

Why should I? I didn’t view their education as child care.